Voting - an Important Responsibility

News outlets spouting sound bites and endorsing popularity contests. Non-news outlets "reporting" regurgitated innuendo from political spin doctors. Millions spent for a job that pays $400,000 a year (before taxes). And nasty commercials being aired by "non-biased" networks, that seem to start earlier and earlier each election.

This is the American political process as we know it today. And how are the elections for the highest office in this country determined? It is often determined by a largely uninformed public casting ballots because the candidate is a woman / man / ethnic group or because they belong to a particular political party. Or, as in recent years, they voted against an incumbent because of their dissatisfaction of current conditions.

The problem arising from voting for a candidate simply due to gender or ethnicity (or even religion or religious leanings) is that it really does nothing for fixing the problems in this country. And deciding upon a political party affiliation often does more harm than good. Reasons for this vary from the fact that political parties often polarize the issues, end up in deadlocks (due to Congress and the President being on opposing sides) and the candidate not really following through with party platforms in the long run.

The method of voting by voting "against" an incumbent candidate is nearly as flawed. Though the voter knows they want change, they often rely on the aforementioned resources for their decision making on how to go about that change.

The best determination on how a political candidate will perform in office is through his/her past performance. In other words, actions speak louder than words.

If already holding (current or past) a political office, past voting records and speeches are a matter of public record (which I will go into more detail later). If not a holder of a political office, the candidate usually has been in public life, so his background and activities can often be found with a little assistance on the internet. (For instance, I was able to get some reports on Al Sharpton and Wesley Clark, who were possible candidates in the 2004 Presidential elections.)

For civilian, or non-political, candidates, you can determine their potential in political office by researching them. Once announced, there will be much information available on the internet. You can see how their past actions reflect their future actions. You can look at how their company did, for example, while they were at the helm. You can check on news articles relating to them, their company or their position in civilian life. Though much more digging needs to be done on someone who has never held an office before, it is not an impossible task.

The best way to determine how an active political figure will do in a new post they are seeking, is to view their past voting record, read past speeches or statements issued and review any news articles related to their public office.

To the argument of poorer people not having access to the internet, there is the library system, which often has internet access available on site. And if they don't, there is the old fashioned method of looking things up via paper and microfilm. For the argument of not having time to do the research themselves, that's why they leave it to the media, I respond thusly. How important is it to you to better your lot in life? Whether the issue in question is taxes, education or women's reproductive rights, everyone has a stake in an election. How can you not have the time to do something that relates to your life and the lives of your family, friends and children? And would you risk your future and that of your children to an outlet that can't even predict the weather accurately?

And to the old argument of just one vote not having any impact in an election, I have the following facts to share.

* In 1800, one vote decided the US Presidency. In the presidential election between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr was tied in the Electoral College, 73 to 73. Therefore the election was tossed into the House of Representatives for decision; but after ballots were cast 36 times by the House, the vote was still tied. Then, one Federalist changed his vote. Others followed, and Jefferson was elected President on the 37th ballot

* In 1839, one vote elected the Governor of Massachusetts, Marcus "Landslide" Morton. Of the 102,066 votes cast by the good people of that commonwealth, he received exactly 51,034. Had his count been 51,033, the election would have been thrown into the Legislature, where he probably would not have won. "Landslide" also made the record books in 1842 when he won the same office again by one vote, this time in the Legislature. (In those days, Massachusetts governors were elected for terms of 1 year.)

* In 1845, one vote brought Texas into the Union. Freed from Mexico in 1836 the Republic of Texas was immediately formed and recognized as a new nation by the United States. In 1845, the Republic of Texas requested annexation to the Union, however, many Americans felt that another southern state would bring trouble. When the Senate voted a deadlock occurred, with the Senate voting 26-26. Then one Senator changed his vote and by this one single vote Texas became the 28th State by a vote of 27-25. It entered into force only after ratification by the Texas Congress and voters

* In 1846, one vote started a war.

* In 1868, one vote saved Andrew Johnson from losing the presidency

* In 1920, one vote gave women the right to vote.

* On the reverse side, in 1986, one vote would have decided a Michigan ballot proposition. A Lansing, Michigan School District millage proposition failed when the final recount produced a tie vote 5,147 for, and 5,147 against. On the original vote count, votes against the proposition were ten more than those in favor. The result meant that the school district had to reduce its budget by $2.5 million.

* In 1994, one vote would have decided a Wyoming state representative election. Republican Randall Luthi and Independent Larry Call tied for a seat in the Wyoming House of Representatives from the Jackson Hole area with 1,941 votes each. A recount produced the same result. Mr. Luthi was finally declared the winner when, in a drawing before the State Canvassing Board, a pingpong ball bearing his name was pulled from the cowboy hat of Democratic Governor Mike Sullivan.

* In 1998, one vote would have decided an Alaska school board election. A TIE was broken by a flip of the coin to elect Wayne Morgan after a runoff election for a school board seat in the Kuspuk School District.

* In 2004, one vote would have decided a Massachusetts Democratic State Committeewoman election. In the Middlesex-Suffolf-Essex state senate district, Lesley Phillips' race for the state committeewoman's seat with Patty Cheevers ended in a tie. A convention was held and Ms. Cheevers was seated on the State Committee, despite a formal complaint by Ms. Phillips that write-in ballots in Boston were not counted. It was later proven that at least four people cast write-in votes for Ms. Phillips in Boston. Ms. Cheevers retained her seat anyway.

But for all those that bemoan our current political state of affairs, I offer one more valid importance of one vote.

* In 2000, one vote decided the presidential election. The Supreme Court voted 5-4, in the case of Gore v. Bush, to stop recounting in Florida. Mr. Bush was declared the winner in Florida by 527 votes out of almost 6 million votes cast. By some recounts, Mr. Gore would have won Florida, and with it the presidency. Florida was NOT the tightest state in the 2000 election: Gore won New Mexico by only 179 votes, although Florida was tighter in percentage terms.

(The aforementioned facts about one vote were obtained via ActiVote's website. Activote is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization committed to providing Americans equal opportunity access to local, regional and national governmental and political resources. They can be found at http://www.activoteamerica.com. But more on that shortly.)

I googled "congressional voting records" and over three hundred thousand websites came up in response to my search. Obviously I can't go through them all here. Nor can I actually go to all 301,000 websites. Here are some that I checked out.

Politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter)
I found an interesting site that tracks comments by the candidates, researches them and lets us know just how true they are. They also rate statements attacking other candidates and gives you the skinny there as well. It is sponsored by The St. Petersburg Times and CQ.com. CQ stands for Congressional Quarterly and was founded by Nelson and Henrietta Poynter in 1945. In 1965, Poynter summed up his reasons for founding CQ, saying "The federal government will never set up an adequate agency to check on itself, and a foundation is too timid for that. So it had to be a private enterprise beholden to its clients." In an odd turnabout, CQ is owned by the Times Publishing Company of St. Petersburg, FL, publisher of the St. Petersburg Times and other publications. The Times Publishing Company is in turn owned by the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists founded by Nelson Poynter. But what I've checked on the accuracy of this site, it seems to stay true to Nelson Poynter's original vision.

ActiVote America (http://www.activoteamerica.com/)
Activote America (mentioned above with the interesting "one vote" facts) is another interesting site. To quote the website's mission statement, "Activote is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization committed to providing Americans equal opportunity access to local, regional and national governmental and political resources. It is Activote's goal to empower all individuals with the information and understanding necessary to voice concerns, address issues and ultimately impact change through the voting process." They do indeed provide valuable information, though they are mostly an on-site organization. They list many colleges, universities and high schools where they have held seminars and forums. There is a resource that will tell you how to register. I had to dig a little and was well rewarded with the following page that I have not been able to find through their main site. It is here that you'll find a very good research tool to see exactly where the candidates stand on issues such as abortion, crime, war and spending; either by referencing their own words or their records.

ProjectVoteSmart (http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm)
The ProjectVoteSmart.org site is a little bit cumbersome to navigate, but it does have a lot of really good information. You can access voting records of the candidates, their stands on major issues and their speeches. All in all, a very good reference for researching who you should elect. (Also, the site has congressional and state candidate records, as well as ballot issues.)

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
The post has a link to a profile of the candidates (including new, profile, money, events and widgets). It also includes a quiz you can take to show which candidate matches your beliefs and issues of importance to you. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/candidatequiz/) The quiz is a tad extensive, but it does cover all the major issues facing the candidates of the 2008 Presidential election. I took the quiz in about 15 minutes and it matched me up (with a 37% rating) with Fred Thompson. This site offers an RSS feed for every current member of Congress, so you can get notified each time your elected officials vote. Each member-specific feed includes the member's position in the latest 10 votes. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/rss/)

Working Families Vote (http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/index.cfm)
The AFL-CIO has a web site that touts listing of State and Federal Congressional votes. It has some interesting layouts as to general candidate issues. Unfortunately, it is very biased in its opinions of the bills and amendments voted on. Also, it is a very difficult database to read. I would avoid this one at all costs, as it would be more confusing and probably dispel you of the notion to continue.

There are a number of sites with difficult to read .pdf or graph charts, such as the AAUW (www.aauw.org) and the Public Citizen (www.citizen.org) sites. They offer lots of information, but you have to have great eyesight and be a political science professor to read them.

There are obviously numerous sites on the web, maybe even some you may know about not mentioned here. The main point is that in order to get the elected official that best matches your concerns, you need to do some research. You wouldn't hire a CEO for your company, or an accountant to do your taxes, without first checking their resume, researching their references and interviewing them. So why would you leave a decision on who should run the country in which you live to some talk show hostess, no matter how well meaning, or some newspaper publisher that may have an agenda not compatible with yours? Or, heaven forbid, why listen to some "hot-for-the-moment" starlet or television hunk, who probably have no clue what health insurance costs or how much a loaf of bread is at the store?

So check out the candidates, register to vote and vote for the candidate that best meets your needs. If enough Americans were to get out and vote in an informed way, than the leadership of this country would be more representative of the people. Not everyone will be happy, but at least more will be represented in the process of government. Many throughout history gave their lives so that, according to Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

(Please participate in my poll. I will post the results in a future article. Or you can view results as they compile by clicking here. Or discuss the poll here.)

Reference Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

http://www.activoteamerica.com

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter